Elvis Presley...........

Allow them all to get together and they become dangerous. "Allow" includes "encourage via right-wing web-sites and news media".

Click to expand...

For me the test is have they harmed or colluded in the harming of or advocated the harming of others who have not themselves done so. If none of these then we must permit them to hold such views no matter how much we detest them.

It's very easy to identify a folk song. Singers of these songs tend to hold a hand behind an ear, look off into some faraway indistinct place, and sing (men in this instance) in a voice that suggests something, or someone, is strongly squeezing their testicles

Click to expand...

To quote "I have sung the folk tradition with me finger in me ear" I'll stop there.
The finger in the ear, hand behind the ear is a much more effective form of foldback.

I would not stop you but go further and encourage you to do so provided all you do is write or speak but not act.

That's where I might disagree depending on what you mean by "stop". If you mean "prevent from saying" then I would want to see solid proof that the statement was likely to cause harm. "I don't think that Quakers should be allowed to speak" is not the same as "I call on all good Christians to kill Quakers" (I hope that's a sufficiently silly example not to cause offence).

That's where I do disagree. To me all opinions must be accepted as valid or we're on the slippery slope that Martin Niemöller warns us of. We're all entitled to oppose those opinions and the examples you give are opinions I oppose vehemently.

Click to expand...

Can't possibly agree with anyone that suggests that all opinions are valid; at least you didn't say "equally valid", though. Problem is that by allowing some opinions, you're actually giving us a shove down that slippery Niemoller slope, and that's where it does get ethically very tricky.

............
There are 1000 racist nutters in a given area, diluted in a general population of one million. Individually, they are harmless. ......

R.

Click to expand...

Not so. You only need one nutter with a van to achieve a kill ratio of ten to one. If they were a bit more scientific and load their van with concrete blocks over the driven axle, instead of more jihadis then one person would achieve far more. No, I am not helping them, they have worked that already; they are not stupid, just corrupted.

Not so. You only need one nutter with a van to achieve a kill ratio of ten to one. If they were a bit more scientific and load their van with concrete blocks over the driven axle, instead of more jihadis then one person would achieve far more. No, I am not helping them, they have worked that already; they are not stupid, just corrupted.

Click to expand...

And this one nutter would decide, all his ownsome, to do this? There is no possibility that he was encouraged by other nutters?

There are 1000 racist nutters in a given area, diluted in a general population of one million. Individually, they are harmless. Allow them all to get together and they become dangerous. "Allow" includes "encourage via right-wing web-sites and news media".

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, one of them gets an idea and he, or less likely she, can easily contact like minded individuals over the internet and you have a conspiracy.

But it could be just one nutter.
And it gets worse. Another nutter, perhaps not from the distrusted minority, driving something like a petrol tanker might be tempted to take revenge.
The risk is not just of copycat killings by the first nutter group, but revenge by members of the majority target population, many of whom are in positions of great trust.

But it could be just one nutter.
And it gets worse. Another nutter, perhaps not from the distrusted minority, driving something like a petrol tanker might be tempted to take revenge.
The risk is not just of copycat killings by the first nutter group, but revenge by members of the majority target population, many of whom are in positions of great trust.

Click to expand...

Sure, it could. But a phrase that springs to mind in response to your post is "clutching at straws".

But to return to Elvis, Sky Arts have a season on him and last night's on 1956 was very good. Still irks me that most his early hits were covers of black songs, but that was the way things were then and he did completely re-interpret them. Rolling Stones were the same.

But to return to Elvis, Sky Arts have a season on him and last night's on 1956 was very good. Still irks me that most his early hits were covers of black songs, but that was the way things were then and he did completely re-interpret them. Rolling Stones were the same.

......died 40 years ago today.How the years have flown.I`ve got a clear image in my mind of hearing the news on the radio.

Click to expand...

But did he record anything decent after 1958? Or ever perform in the UK?
No to both - too busy making crap films (not entirely his fault) and ballads written for middle-aged fans on valium.

If you want to talk about talent in writing and performing, why not Chuck Berry?
I saw him in 1976 in the UK, and nobody I have seen since was in the same league. After the first song, he paused and asked the audience if the sound was too loud. It was (having been set up by the usual mixing desk person who lost his hearing years ago), and it was turned down. A true professional, even when his backing band were not.

I don't know what his opinion would be about a Canon DSLR versus a Zenith SLR (see above), but I suspect it would be very brief, entertaining and erudite.

No indeed. And apart from a few pretty boy imitators in the very early 60s no-one really followed him either. Whereas the Stones took up the mantle of Chuck Berry and the Beatles Buddy Holly. Both in my view more influential musically (if not culturally) than Elvis. But Elvis was the catalyst (not Bill Haley) that opened black music to whites and enabled blacks to cross over. Chuck would have remained in the black charts and Buddy might never have got started if not for Elvis and they both admitted it.